Could you accept this?

[Anti-Red]

Okay, imagine this scenario. Suddenly one day all the true communists, not the authoritarians like the Soviets, but people like you, decided to move to some big open space, like Siberia, and you had plenty of room. There was enough room for every revolutionary leftist on Earth and you had control of the government there. You had enough money to pay the way for anyone who wants to come to immigrate there and every country in the world has agreed that anybody who wants to leave and go there can. The only thing is that all the rest of the world will be lived in by those who like capitalism. So what would you do then? Would you be satisfied with this set-up or would you only be satisfied if every place lived as you want to? Also, if so many of you are anarchists, what if there are some people who want to set up a capitalist community in your anarcho-world? Would you allow them to do it. I mean look at the so-called "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War, they enforced their way of life on people.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Also, if so many of you are anarchists, what if there are some people who want to set up a capitalist community in your anarcho-world? Would you allow them to do it. I mean look at the so-called "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War, they enforced their way of life on people.

Who is "they"? "They" were the people. You act as if a mass of proletarians in a hypothetical revolutionary society would still want capitalism, thats pure idealism on your part. And no we won't allow the petty bourgeois wants to maintain some form of "market socialism", thats counter revolutionary.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Okay, imagine this scenario. Suddenly one day all the true communists, not the authoritarians like the Soviets, but people like you, decided to move to some big open space, like Siberia, and you had plenty of room.
yeah siberia is the place i want to live in... really...


here was enough room for every revolutionary leftist on Earth and you had control of the government there.
why would we still want a government?


You had enough money to pay the way for anyone who wants to come to immigrate there and every country in the world has agreed that anybody who wants to leave and go there can
why would we still want money?


The only thing is that all the rest of the world will be lived in by those who like capitalism. So what would you do then? Would you be satisfied with this set-up or would you only be satisfied if every place lived as you want to?
the question is not if we will let them live their life (which is from the mostly anti-imperialist view on this board not the question at all) but if we will be free from outside interference... and we all know there is going to be outside interference


what if there are some people who want to set up a capitalist community in your anarcho-world?
if the rest of the world is capitalist and they can leave whenever they want, why should they enforce their view on our society? oh maybe thats the capitalist way? :rolleyes:

[Anti-Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:56 PM
And no we won't allow the petty bourgeois wants to maintain some form of "market socialism", thats counter revolutionary.
See, all of you guys are a bunch of authoritarians. You say you are for freedom but so did Stalin before he took over. You guys are hypocrites and you are as bad as people like Pat Robertson because all you want to do is make people live "your way." Well sorry, but you guys will NEVER win and if you try to disturb the peace with a revolution, don't come crying to me when you are crushed by the military and strapped to the electric chair.

[rouchambeau]

The only thing is that all the rest of the world will be lived in by those who like capitalism. So what would you do then?

Assuming the rest of the world isn't messing with us I would just go about my business.


Would you be satisfied with this set-up or would you only be satisfied if every place lived as you want to?

If everyone had the choice to come to "anarcho-land" I don't see the problem with the rest of the world being capitalist.


Also, if so many of you are anarchists, what if there are some people who want to set up a capitalist community in your anarcho-world?

That necessarily means depriving people of their own means of production and wealth. That's not cool with me.


I mean look at the so-called "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War, they enforced their way of life on people.

That's like saying it's bad to beat the shit out of a rapist because it would make one as bad as the rapist.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Anti-Red+Aug 19 2006, 07:16 PM--> (Anti-Red @ Aug 19 2006, 07:16 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 06:56 PM
And no we won't allow the petty bourgeois wants to maintain some form of "market socialism", thats counter revolutionary.
See, all of you guys are a bunch of authoritarians. You say you are for freedom but so did Stalin before he took over. You guys are hypocrites and you are as bad as people like Pat Robertson because all you want to do is make people live "your way." Well sorry, but you guys will NEVER win and if you try to disturb the peace with a revolution, don't come crying to me when you are crushed by the military and strapped to the electric chair. [/b]
does capitalist society allow stealing? murdering? raping? no they dont. so to your standarts every kind protection for fellow citizens is authoritarian?

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:08 PM


why would we still want a government?


why would we still want money?


I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without money and government. All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of government. Only the primitive societies societies did not have money, and they did not have money because they had not invented it yet. Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no money and government" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without money and government, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 19 2006, 09:00 PM
I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without money and government. All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of government. Only the primitive societies societies did not have money, and they did not have money because they had not invented it yet. Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no money and government" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without money and government, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...quest/ch13.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch13.html)

[Morag]

I wouldn't be happy there- I might visit, but my interest isn't to live in seclusion from what I dislike (capitalism), but to help emancipate the working class from capitalism. So, no, I wouldn't be able to accept it. Sorry, there is no half-way in the struggle for freedom.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 19 2006, 01:16 PM
See, all of you guys are a bunch of authoritarians. You say you are for freedom but so did Stalin before he took over. You guys are hypocrites and you are as bad as people like Pat Robertson because all you want to do is make people live "your way." Well sorry, but you guys will NEVER win and if you try to disturb the peace with a revolution, don't come crying to me when you are crushed by the military and strapped to the electric chair.
I don't want to make anybody live "my way," I want to help organize the proletariat to fight and work with other proletarians towards the overthrow of our oppressors. It won't be me, or a few of us, deciding how to live, it will be a mass.

[violencia.Proletariat]

See, all of you guys are a bunch of authoritarians. You say you are for freedom but so did Stalin before he took over.

We are all for freedom of the proletariat. We never said freedom applied to capitalists in post revolutionary society. FUCK THEM.


You guys are hypocrites and you are as bad as people like Pat Robertson because all you want to do is make people live "your way."

Actually we physically can't make any "live our way", nor is that our goal. What we are proposing is suppressing the bourgeois class movement to incite counter revolution. In post revolutionary society the large majority of the proletariat will oppose capitalism. So who exactly is it that we are forcing to live our way? The bourgeoisie will flee, they dont have to worry about anything.

[Anti-Red]

Actually it kind of is. And most people do not want to live in that society. There goes your dreaming. I mean, it sounds like the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks and there is no doubt that it would produce the same result as the Bolsheviks. You will have a drab, dull, boring land with a bunch of paranoid party officials in charge which will crumble after seventy years, just like the one before.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 19 2006, 08:28 PM
Actually it kind of is. And most people do not want to live in that society. There goes your dreaming. I mean, it sounds like the rhetoric of the Bolsheviks and there is no doubt that it would produce the same result as the Bolsheviks. You will have a drab, dull, boring land with a bunch of paranoid party officials in charge which will crumble after seventy years, just like the one before.
I'm not a bolshevik you moron.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 19 2006, 08:00 PM
I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without money and government.
Oh? on what grounds have you made this assertion "fact" ? On the contrary I would not only say that such a society could work, but that society with government, and money dosn't work.



All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of government.

Rome? Carthage? Parthia? where are they now? all of them, eventually, imploded, or were overthrown/surpassed, such the fate has been of every government order to date. So it would seem a natural tendency of humanity, to overthrow and destroy their order after it proves to have reached the limit of it's usefulness. Government has a very superficial existence in society, I see no practical reason to maintain a tool of class oppression post revolution. The government, by definition is a privileged class of people, who dictate how everyone should act, and enforce this law, by force. In otherwords, government by definition, means class.

I thought we were for a classless society? Aren't we all equal? "a government is after all just a group of people, and is therefore, rather notably, ungoverned"


Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no money and government" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without money and government, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death.

This seems to me, to be a very cague criticism, so much so that I could just replace the definition of the society I wanted to attack, and it'd still make sense.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I wouldn't be satisfied with sitting on my arse in Siberia, I'd much prefer to help get rid of capitalism elsewhere. Permanent revolution. :)

-Alex

[An archist]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 19 2006, 06:45 PM
Okay, imagine this scenario. Suddenly one day all the true communists, not the authoritarians like the Soviets, but people like you, decided to move to some big open space, like Siberia, and you had plenty of room. There was enough room for every revolutionary leftist on Earth and you had control of the government there. You had enough money to pay the way for anyone who wants to come to immigrate there and every country in the world has agreed that anybody who wants to leave and go there can. The only thing is that all the rest of the world will be lived in by those who like capitalism. So what would you do then? Would you be satisfied with this set-up or would you only be satisfied if every place lived as you want to? Also, if so many of you are anarchists, what if there are some people who want to set up a capitalist community in your anarcho-world? Would you allow them to do it. I mean look at the so-called "anarchists" in the Spanish Civil War, they enforced their way of life on people.
Actually my dear friend, I've been dreaming about this sort of thing for a while now, it would be great! Since a revolution will go against the will of certain people, it would be best to get ourselves our own spot where anarchists and communists could live together.
In fact, in such a place, the communists wouldn't have need for a government, since all the inhabitants would be communists or anarchists already.
If, as you say, pêople wnat to set up a capitalist community, it would be very hard for them to make enough money, they would have to sell their products to the outside world. Unless of course they started building factories in the 'normal' way or big houses for the rich to enjoy only, then we would stop them: othwerwise they would just take back the land slowly.
But of course, it would be very hard to get such a place: look at communities like Christiania or ADM, they're a pain in the arse for local authorities, since they can't make money from them.

EDIT: you see, my capitalist friend, in a wolrd you described, it would be the choice of the people to live there, if they want democracy, they shouldn't come there, if they want to become rich, they shouldn't come there.
We anarchists and communists however, have no place to go and live our own lifestyle, and when we try to make one, we are chased and attacked by the forces of order.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Aug 20 2006, 09:55 AM--> (Love Underground @ Aug 20 2006, 09:55 AM)
adenoid [email protected] 19 2006, 08:00 PM
I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without money and government.
Oh? on what grounds have you made this assertion "fact" ? On the contrary I would not only say that such a society could work, but that society with government, and money dosn't work.



All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of government.

Rome? Carthage? Parthia? where are they now? all of them, eventually, imploded, or were overthrown/surpassed, such the fate has been of every government order to date. So it would seem a natural tendency of humanity, to overthrow and destroy their order after it proves to have reached the limit of it's usefulness. Government has a very superficial existence in society, I see no practical reason to maintain a tool of class oppression post revolution. The government, by definition is a privileged class of people, who dictate how everyone should act, and enforce this law, by force. In otherwords, government by definition, means class.

I thought we were for a classless society? Aren't we all equal? "a government is after all just a group of people, and is therefore, rather notably, ungoverned"


Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no money and government" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without money and government, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death.

This seems to me, to be a very cague criticism, so much so that I could just replace the definition of the society I wanted to attack, and it'd still make sense. [/b]
I am gonna form my final opinion on the subject when I read the link that Skinz gave me.

But let me ask a few questions;

Modern economies are based on large-scale industries. Those industries can work only with some kind of management, either private management( private industries, which are offcourse rejected by you as capitalistic) or public management( public industries, owned and managed by the state, which you also reject because you do not want .........government). How are the goods going to be produced? With small scale production? Do you have any idea what would that mean? It would mean that the same product which is producted nowadays in large scale industries with four hours of work...... would need ......40 hours to be producted in small scale production... Do you understand how much poverty would be created? It is almost sure that under these circumstances the average worker would be much more poor than he is now.

Without government how would the society defend in case of an alien invasion? I mean, in order to defend yourself in such a case you need an organised army. But in order to have an organised army you need someone to organise it.... who would do such a thing, if not some type of government? Would the defense of this society be based on the..... creativity of its anarchist citizens?

Without money how are you going to have exchange of goods? Would you just go to the grocery and say " I want some vegetables, please give it to me for free? Or would u produce your own vegetables? Would u go to the tobacco shop and say " I want a pack of cigarettes, please give it to me for free", or would u produce your own tobacco? Would u steal it? What would u do?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 20 2006, 03:07 PM
How are the goods going to be produced?


By the same mechanisms that produce good today. I think what you meant to ask, was how will production be managed? and the answer is by Workers syndicates/democratic federations. Would this be a form of authority? yes, over machines, but machines don't have rights, and who the hell would want to give them any?


Do you understand how much poverty would be created?

By the abolition of industry? of course. But im not a primitivist, and im not calling for the abolition of industry.


Without government how would the society defend in case of an alien invasion?

With force of arms, obviously.


I mean, in order to defend yourself in such a case you need an organised army.

But hang on, who are we defending ourselves from? and why are they invading?


Without money how are you going to have exchange of goods? Would you just go to the grocery and say " I want some vegetables, please give it to me for free? Or would u produce your own vegetables? Would u go to the tobacco shop and say " I want a pack of cigarettes, please give it to me for free", or would u produce your own tobacco? Would u steal it? What would u do?

"from each acording his faculties, to each according his needs"

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Love Underground+Aug 20 2006, 03:51 PM--> (Love Underground @ Aug 20 2006, 03:51 PM)
adenoid [email protected] 20 2006, 03:07 PM
How are the goods going to be produced?


By the same mechanisms that produce good today. I think what you meant to ask, was how will production be managed? and the answer is by Workers syndicates/democratic federations. Would this be a form of authority? yes, over machines, but machines don't have rights, and who the hell would want to give them any?


Do you understand how much poverty would be created?

By the abolition of industry? of course. But im not a primitivist, and im not calling for the abolition of industry.


Without government how would the society defend in case of an alien invasion?

With force of arms, obviously.


I mean, in order to defend yourself in such a case you need an organised army.

But hang on, who are we defending ourselves from? and why are they invading?


Without money how are you going to have exchange of goods? Would you just go to the grocery and say " I want some vegetables, please give it to me for free? Or would u produce your own vegetables? Would u go to the tobacco shop and say " I want a pack of cigarettes, please give it to me for free", or would u produce your own tobacco? Would u steal it? What would u do?

"from each acording his faculties, to each according his needs" [/b]

By the same mechanisms that produce good today. I think what you meant to ask, was how will production be managed? and the answer is by Workers syndicates/democratic federations. Would this be a form of authority? yes, over machines, but machines don't have rights, and who the hell would want to give them any?

Aren't the leaders of syndicates a type of government? Aren't they - according to your logic- an "upper class"? And if each syndicate will make the management of a certain part of the ecnomy, who will design the WHOLE economy? Who will decide how much money goes to education? Who decides how much money goes to industries, and how much money goes to each kind of industry?



"from each acording his faculties, to each according his needs"

How do you define needs? I say that I need to smoke ten pack of cigarettes a day. Will the society give me ten pack of cigarettes a day? How are the " needs" of an individual defined?

And let's say for example that society decides that my needs are 2 coats, 3 shirts, 5 Cd's, 10 tomatoes etc. But I do not like Cd's; I like to have many nice clothes. Isn't it better if the society instead of giving me the goods that "she" considers that I need, is giving me an amount of money EQUAL to my needs, which I can spend in any way I want?

[RaiseYourVoice]

Aren't the leaders of syndicates a type of government?
who said those syndicates have leaders?


And if each syndicate will make the management of a certain part of the ecnomy, who will design the WHOLE economy?
we all know that designing a whole economy doesnt work, centralized plans dont meet the needs of the people.


Who will decide how much money goes to education?
didnt we get rid of money already?


How do you define needs? I say that I need to smoke ten pack of cigarettes a day. Will the society give me ten pack of cigarettes a day? How are the " needs" of an individual defined?
you decide what you need and you take it? no problem with it if you dont use it to hoard it and empower yourself over others

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 20 2006, 04:20 PM
Aren't the leaders of syndicates a type of government? Aren't they - according to your logic- an "upper class"?
There aren't leaders of syndicates. So no, they're not an upper class.



And if each syndicate will make the management of a certain part of the ecnomy, who will design the WHOLE economy?

Well syndicates will be a part of a federative Directly-democratic society, the society, or "federation" (if you will) will direct the overall economy. But not in any centeralised way.


now do you define needs? I say that I need to smoke ten pack of cigarettes a day. Will the society give me ten pack of cigarettes a day? How are the " needs" of an individual defined?

The needs of a human are quite obvious, and not open to much debate. You need food, water, shelter, medical care ect. You are an autonomous individual, and like every other individual, you are free to contribute to production to satisfy your own needs based on your own choice.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:35 PM

Aren't the leaders of syndicates a type of government?
who said those syndicates have leaders?


And if each syndicate will make the management of a certain part of the ecnomy, who will design the WHOLE economy?
we all know that designing a whole economy doesnt work, centralized plans dont meet the needs of the people.


Who will decide how much money goes to education?
didnt we get rid of money already?


How do you define needs? I say that I need to smoke ten pack of cigarettes a day. Will the society give me ten pack of cigarettes a day? How are the " needs" of an individual defined?
you decide what you need and you take it? no problem with it if you dont use it to hoard it and empower yourself over others

who said those syndicates have leaders?


Do you have any idea how many decisions have to be taken every day in order for an industry to operate? Who will take these decisions? Will the whole syndicate will take every decison? Will every member of the syndicate vote for every one of the countless decisions that have to be made in order for an industry to operate?




we all know that designing a whole economy doesnt work, centralized plans dont meet the needs of the people.

This is completely unrealistic; when you have a group of people, you must have a kind of centrilised economy. I mean even the smallest group of people( a family) has to design a centrilised economy. The parents have to decide how much "resources"( since you do not like the word "money") will go to the pocket- money of children, how many " resources" will be spent for their clothing, how many " resources" will be spent for food, how much will be saved for the future. If every member of the family spends " resources" without any plan, soon there will be no "resources"


didnt we get rid of money already?.

This is completely childish. For example the books that are needed foe education do not just grow on trees. Many people have to work in order for them to be produced, some " resources" have to be spent, in order for them to be produced. A society has limited( not endless) resources and someone has to decide how these resources will be used in the most efficient way. Offcourse " resources" and money is basically the same thing( money is basically a tool used to make easier the exchange, movement of resources), but since the word "money" is "too capitalistic and oppressive" for you, I won't use it.


you decide what you need and you take it? no problem with it if you dont use it to hoard it and empower yourself over others

Yeah right.. for example one decides that s/he needs to eat 3 tons of food every day and takes it.. the fact that there won't be enough food for the others is no problem. for example we all " decide" that we need an expensive car, but the fact that society cannot afford to provide it for us is irrelevant....we just take it.
It is obvious that if everybody "decided" what he needs and "took" it, almost everybody would take much more than what s/he produces. This would mean that the goods and the resources would soon be eliminated . I told u ; the goods and the resources on this Earth are not endless; they are limited. It is like saying that in a family the son will just " decide" that he needs a Mercedes and he will take it, the daughter will just decide that she needs " Prada" or " Armani" and will take it etc., without considerating if the family can afford buying all those things; soon the family will have no money at all

[LittleMao]

First of all. I do not want to live in Siberia. The American Revolution will take place. Then the decline of Capitalism will take place all around the world. Then I will be satisfied.

[RaiseYourVoice]

For your family example... does that mean that the goverment is adult and we are all kids? i am sure large part of goverment like that view.

my parents also never told me how to spend my money btw, i could always manage my resources pretty good myself without anyone telling me to.

also you didnt get the problem, its not that i dont like the word money. its perfectly ok describing todays world, i just want to get rid of money for the future.


Yeah right.. for example one decides that s/he needs to eat 3 tons of food every day and takes it
why on earth would you want 3 tons of food? and how would you take it home?


for example we all " decide" that we need an expensive car, but the fact that society cannot afford to provide it for us is irrelevant....we just take it.
if society cannot provide us with cars how are we going to take them? are you really denying any sense of logic in humans?


It is like saying that in a family the son will just " decide" that he needs a Mercedes and he will take it, the daughter will just decide that she needs " Prada" or " Armani" and will take it etc., without considerating if the family can afford buying all those things; soon the family will have no money at all

well the thing is... what makes you believe that they would? if they are educated how to manage the resources themselves?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Aug 19 2006, 08:00 PM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Aug 19 2006, 08:00 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 07:08 PM


why would we still want a government?


why would we still want money?


I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without money and government. All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of government. Only the primitive societies societies did not have money, and they did not have money because they had not invented it yet. Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no money and government" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without money and government, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death. [/b]
That makes about as much sense as if you had said...

"I do not like to attack people personally, but I have to say that people like you give leftism a bad name. It is obvious that a society cannot work without classes. All societies in the history of this Earth, even the most primitive ones, had a type of class system. Only the primitive societies societies did not have classes, and they did not have classes because they had not invented them yet. Leftism is about giving practical, realistic solutions to the people's problems. It's not about dreaming about things that cannot happen. Saying that " we will have no classes" may sound cool, but the truth is that if ever any madmen tried to build a society without classes, this society would be completely destroyed and the people would starve to death."

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:13 PM
For your family example... does that mean that the goverment is adult and we are all kids? i am sure large part of goverment like that view.

my parents also never told me how to spend my money btw, i could always manage my resources pretty good myself without anyone telling me to.

also you didnt get the problem, its not that i dont like the word money. its perfectly ok describing todays world, i just want to get rid of money for the future.


Yeah right.. for example one decides that s/he needs to eat 3 tons of food every day and takes it
why on earth would you want 3 tons of food? and how would you take it home?


for example we all " decide" that we need an expensive car, but the fact that society cannot afford to provide it for us is irrelevant....we just take it.
if society cannot provide us with cars how are we going to take them? are you really denying any sense of logic in humans?


It is like saying that in a family the son will just " decide" that he needs a Mercedes and he will take it, the daughter will just decide that she needs " Prada" or " Armani" and will take it etc., without considerating if the family can afford buying all those things; soon the family will have no money at all

well the thing is... what makes you believe that they would? if they are educated how to manage the resources themselves?

For your family example... does that mean that the goverment is adult and we are all kids? i am sure large part of goverment like that view.


Ok, if you do not like the family example I will give you another.\
Let's say that we have a small community; 100 adult people. These people have to decide how are going to survive; they have to make some decisions. What kind of agriculture will we do? Corn, tomatoes, tobacco, potatoes WHAT? How much time are we going to spend on the production of each of these products? Which product is produced more easily( obviously we are going to spend more time at the production of those gooods which are easily producted? Which methods can we use in order to make the production easier? Which percentage of the members of the society will work at building houses? Where will the houses be built? How many people will work for making furniture? Which people are the most suitable for each of these works etc.

There are many decisions like these that have to be taken in order for the community to prosper. The fact that the community is small, its economy is simple and the decisions that have to be made are few allows us to have a ''perfect democracy". To make all these decisions by a voting process at which allthe members of the community vote.

But what happens if we have a society with millions of members? What happens when we do not a simple primitive economy, but a very complicate economy based on large-scale industry and thousands of complicate decisions that need to be made? Is it possible, in this situation, for the WHOLE SOCIETY to make these thousands of decisions? Is it possible for each of the millions of people of this society to vote for every one of these thousands of decisions that have to be made? NO. The fact that the WHOLE SOCIETY cannot make all these decisions means that some individuals ( leaders) have to make them. That's why the society have to vote for some kind of government.

The truth is that the only way to abolish government is to dismantle big societies and create small societies of 200-300 people; but this would be a return to primitivism; Industry would necessarily be abolished and consequently the production of goods would become much more difficult than it is nowadays.


my parents also never told me how to spend my money btw, i could always manage my resources pretty good myself without anyone telling me to.


What are u talking about? Did your parents give you as much money as you wanted? Obviously they had " planned" a "centrilised family economy" and they gave you a limited amount of money, according to this "plan". Offcourse they did not tell you how to use your money. But didn't you make "plans" about how you were going to spend your money? Didn't you ever say " I won't buy this shirt because I want to save money for the concert of next week"? You obviously had to make plans about how you would use your money(= resources). Now take into consideration that the plans that society has to make about how "she" is going to use her money(= resources) are a million times more important and complicated than your "plans". I already explained why these plans(= decisions) cannot be made by the WHOLE SOCIETY, at least in societies with millions of members; the fact that the WHOLE SOCIETY cannot make these decisions means that she has to give to certain individuals the authority to make them.


also you didnt get the problem, its not that i dont like the word money. its perfectly ok describing todays world, i just want to get rid of money for the future.


The point is that if you are going to have exchange of goods, you need money.
Exchange of goods is necessary. The idea that a society at which everyone " will just take everything he wants for free" can operate successfully is obviously childish and ridiculous.



if society cannot provide us with cars how are we going to take them? are you really denying any sense of logic in humans?


Maybe I did not use the proper words to explain what I wanted to say.....
Anyway the point is simple..... everyday the people of a society produce some goods... if they are allowed to " take everything they want for free", they will start to consume more than they produce.. this obviously means that, sooner or later, the goods will be eliminated.


well the thing is... what makes you believe that they would? if they are educated how to manage the resources themselves?

Yes, indeed if you have two or three kids you can trust them; but we are not tqalking about this; we are talking about a society with millions of people; can u trust all of them? Personally I have met many people who want to buy and to buy and to buy, they want expensive cars, expensive clothes, big houses, big TV's etc.
Do you know how quickly those people would destroy your society at which " everone can take what he wants"?